re-dotnet-patch

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation4/5
Tools have distinct purposes (probing, NOP, atomic patch, IL replacement, string replacement, rollback), but nop_method and replace_method_body both modify method bodies, causing slight overlap.
Naming Consistency4/5
Naming pattern is mostly consistent with verb_noun (e.g., patch_assembly, replace_method_body), but check_dnlib and nop_method deviate slightly from the pattern.
Tool Count5/5
6 tools is well-scoped for a .NET assembly patching server, covering essential operations without being overwhelming.
Completeness3/5
Core patching operations are covered, but missing tools for reading assembly metadata or scanning methods, and several tools are stubs (not_implemented) in v2.8.0, limiting practical completeness.
Average 3.2/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored. Lowest: 1.9/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 3 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only mentions atomicity and a version note about returning 'status: not_implemented'. It fails to disclose side effects, permission needs, or what happens to the assembly. Critical behavioral details are missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short, but the version note is misplaced and not helpful. While it is concise, it sacrifices clarity and completeness. The structure could be improved by separating behavior and version info.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of patching an assembly with multiple parameters including a legal confirmation field, the description is severely incomplete. It lacks essential context about what constitutes an operation, the effect of confirm_legal, and return value expectations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the tool description adds no explanation for any of the 4 parameters (path, operations, dst, confirm_legal). The 'operations' array of objects is left completely undefined, leaving the agent with no semantic understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states 'Apply a list of operations atomically', which identifies the action and atomicity, but it is vague about what types of operations or what resource is patched. The version note about 'not_implemented' adds confusion. It distinguishes from siblings by naming 'patch_assembly' but does not differentiate behavior.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like nop_method or replace_method_body. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses a key behavioral fact: the tool returns 'not_implemented' as of v2.8.0. However, with no annotations, it fails to describe other important behaviors (e.g., whether it modifies files, need for permissions, error handling).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no fluff. First sentence is the core purpose. The second sentence is a version note. Could be more efficient by integrating parameter details instead.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what IL bytes should look like, the role of 'confirm_legal', error conditions, or side effects. The agent lacks context to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description adds no information about parameters (path, method_fqn, new_il_b64, dst, confirm_legal). The agent must rely solely on parameter names, which may be insufficient for correct usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the action ('Replace a method body') and resource ('with caller-supplied IL bytes'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like nop_method and patch_assembly. However, the note about returning 'not_implemented' introduces ambiguity about whether the tool currently functions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, no when-not-to-use advice. The note about v2.8.0 hints at a limitation but does not provide clear usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns status 'delegate' with a remediation hint and does not perform the restore itself. However, it does not mention side effects, authentication needs, or whether the operation is destructive or read-only.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (3 sentences) and gets the main point across immediately. It is efficiently structured, though slightly more detail could be added without harming conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is a simple stub with no output schema. The description explains the delegation but lacks parameter explanations and concrete usage context, making it insufficient for the agent to use the tool correctly without additional guesswork.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the four parameters (original, restore_target, expected_sha256, confirm_legal). The agent receives no guidance on parameter meaning beyond the schema, which has only titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool delegates to re-patch.restore_original for byte-restore, distinguishing it from sibling patching tools. However, it could be more explicit about the overall goal of rolling back a patch.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies that when a byte-restore is needed, this stub should be called and then re-patch.restore_original should be used. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide when-not conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral transparency burden. It explicitly states that in v2.8.0 it returns 'status: not_implemented', which is a critical behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose other traits like side effects, permissions, or success/failure conditions, which would be needed for a fully transparent description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise at two sentences. The first sentence states the core function, and the second provides an important version note. However, the note about 'not_implemented' could be more prominent, and there is no structural separation like bullet points. Still, it is not verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 6 parameters (4 required) and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'ldstr' is, how to use the parameters together, or what the return value means beyond 'not_implemented'. The version note is useful but insufficient for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 6 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description adds no information about the parameters, their formats, or relationships. For example, 'path', 'method_fqn', 'old', 'new', 'dst', 'confirm_legal' are all unexplained. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Replace a specific ldstr operand within a method body'. The verb 'replace' and the specific resource 'ldstr operand' make the function unambiguous. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like 'replace_method_body', which targets the entire method.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when-not to use, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'patch_assembly' or 'replace_method_body'. The only usage hint is that it returns 'not_implemented' in v2.8.0, which is more of a limitation than guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It reveals version-dependent behavior (stub vs. real probe) but does not describe the return format or side effects (likely none). More detail on what the 'real backend probe' returns would improve transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the purpose. Every sentence is informative, and there is no redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is adequate for a simple, parameterless tool, but it lacks specification of the output format for the v2.8.1 real probe. An agent parsing the response would need that information. With no output schema, the description should be more complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the description does not need to add parameter meaning. According to the guidelines, 0 parameters yields a baseline of 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: to probe the dnlib/Mono.Cecil backend. It includes version-specific behavior, which adds precision. This tool is distinct from its siblings (patch, replace, rollback) as it is diagnostic.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for checking backend availability, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but description details that original is never modified, patched copy written to dst, type graph preserved, and version behavior (v2.8.0 returns status, v2.8.1 lands round-trip). Full disclosure of effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is mostly concise with a clear structure, but includes some tangential references (RE-AI output directory, MainWindow.cs) that add minor clutter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description mentions return status and schema_for_replay, and covers type graph invariants. For a 4-param tool with clear use case, it is sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description's Args section adds key details: method_fqn format, dst must differ from path, confirm_legal as audit trail. Fully compensates for missing schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Replace a method body with a NOP-sled (return default)', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like replace_method_body by specifying the NOP replacement.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides a concrete use case (stubbing store/license/telemetry gates) and notes that dst must differ from path. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools or state when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![re-dotnet-patch MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Heretek-RE/re-dotnet-patch/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Heretek-RE/re-dotnet-patch)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![re-dotnet-patch MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Heretek-RE/re-dotnet-patch/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Heretek-RE/re-dotnet-patch)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Heretek-RE/re-dotnet-patch'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server